In our outrage over Nancy Pelosi's unconstitutional and, according to some legal experts, criminal attempt to steal the reins of American foreign policy from President Bush, let's not tacitly give her a pass for her egregiously wrongheaded assertion that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

Apparently Pelosi believes: a) that the terrorist-sponsoring Syrian regime is a nation of good will, whose leaders are reasonable and interested in resolving disputes through peaceful dialogue, and b) that the U.S. policy of isolating Syria and refusing to negotiate with its leaders until it renounces its support of terrorism is wrong.

How is this different from the Pelosi liberals' position concerning endless "negotiations" with Saddam Hussein? To them, it didn't seem to matter that he had violated umpteen U.N. resolutions and was openly defying weapons inspectors. They always wanted to extend the time for diplomacy and defer the use of force.

Their mindset toward Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no different. They believe he can be reasoned with and that his grievances can be addressed through jawboning. We are the unreasonable ones, not Ahmadinejad, for refusing to engage in bilateral talks with him.

Underlying this liberal penchant for diplomacy at all costs is the assumption that these dictators have legitimate grievances against the United States, that they are prepared to negotiate in good faith and that they desire peace on other than their own nefarious terms.

But are they in good faith? Neither the Bush administration nor the administration of Israel's Ehud Olmert believes so. They say that as long as Syria is supporting and supplying our terrorist enemies in Iraq and in bed with Hamas and Hezbollah, there is no point in negotiating.

The Bush and Olmert administrations understand that a terrorist is a terrorist, and terrorists don't believe in true, give-and-take negotiations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be terrorists.

If Pelosi and her cohorts actually believe Syria has any shred of a legitimate moral basis to support flagrantly terrorist organizations, perhaps they could let us in on the secret.

Do they sympathize with Syrian President Bashar Assad's causes? Do they believe one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter? Or do they concede that Assad sponsors terrorism, but think he can be sweet-talked out of it? Continued...